The predictors of paradoxical reactions, especially psoriasis, to biologic therapy-findings from the TReasure database: a 5-year follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical characteristics, predictive factors, and practical algorithms of paradoxical reactions (PRs), specifically paradoxical psoriasis (PP). METHODS: The TReasure database is a web-based prospective observational cohort comprised of patients with RA and SpA from 17 centres around Turkey since 2017. A cohort study and a case-control study nestled within the cohort were identified. RESULTS: In total, 2867 RA and 5316 SpA patients were evaluated. The first biologic agent was found to have caused PRs in 60% of the 136 patients (1.66%) who developed the PRs. The median time interval between the PRs and biological onset was 12 months (range 1-132 months, mean 21 months). The most common types of PP, constituting 92.6% of PRs, were pustular (60.3%) and palmoplantar (30.9%). Adalimumab (30.9%), infliximab (19%) and etanercept (17.4%) were the most common agents causing the PP. In the treatment of most PP patients (73.2%), switching biologic agents was favoured, with TNF inhibitor (TNFi) chosen in 46.03% and non-TNFi in 26.9% of cases. The three most frequently selected drugs were etanercept (24.6%), secukinumab (9.5%) and adalimumab (8.7%). Only 5.17% of patients who switched to another TNFi showed progression. The odds ratios (s) for SSZ, HCQ, and LEF use were significantly higher in RA controls than in PP patients (P = 0.033, OR = 0.15; P = 0.012, OR = 0.15; and P = 0.015, OR = 0.13, respectively). In the PP group with SpA, the number of smokers was significantly higher (P = 0.003, OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.81). CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations based on earlier research suggesting that paradoxical reactions develop with the class effect of biological agents, the response of patients who were shifted to another TNFi was favourable.

In the era of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, how close are we to treating rheumatoid arthritis without the use of glucocorticoids?

We wanted to see how close we could get to our goal of treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) without the use of glucocorticoids (GCs) in the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) era using real-life data. Established in 2017, the TReasure database is a web-based, prospective, observational cohort for Turkey. As of May 2019, there were 2,690 RA patients recorded as receiving biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (bDMARDs and tsDMARDs) therapy. At the start of the bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, patients with follow-up visits of at least 3 months were registered. At the time of registration and the last visit, doses of GCs were recorded and it was determined if the target dose of ≤ 7.5 mg was achieved. During registration and follow-up, 23.4% of the patients did not receive GCs and 76.5% of the patients received GCs at any time. GCs could be stopped after 59 (25-116) months in 28.4% of these patients, but 71.6% of patients were still using GC. The target GC dose could not be achieved in 18.2% of these patients (n = 352). The rate of continuing to use GC was significantly higher in women, in the elderly, those with rheumatoid factor (RF) positive, with higher Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain and Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28. The initial GC dose of ≥ 7.5 mg/day was found to be crucial in not reaching the GC target dose (p < 0.001, OR 39.0 (24.1-63.2)). The initial GC dose of ≥ 7.5 mg/day, female gender, age, RF positivity, high DAS28, and VAS pain level were all highly related for GC continuation. Despite the use of DMARDs, our data revealed that we are still far from achieving our goal of treating RA without using steroids.

Presentation of three cases followed up with a diagnosis of Felty syndrome.

An effective treatment strategy for Felty syndrome (FS) has not been developed so far. In this article, three cases with FS, who responded to different treatment modalities, have been presented. Case 1 was a 52-year-old male patient who initially received methotrexate, and then, he was switched to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and cyclosporine treatment when his neutropenia was further deteriorated. The patient needed monthly doses of G-CSF for nearly 6 months, and his steroid dose was increased. Afterwards, his neutropenia improved with cyclosporine, methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine combination treatment. Case 2 was a 78-year-old female patient who was started on leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, and 60 mg methylprednisolone. Case 3 was a 69-year-old female patient who was first treated with 32 mg methylprednisolone, G-CSF, and then with cyclosporine. Neutropenia of both patients improved, and their health status normalized at 2 months. Different treatment strategies have been tried for the management of FS; disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been used successfully alone or in combination with G-CSF. As seen in the last case, it should be kept in mind that patients can present predominantly with symptoms of infection or hematologic disorders.